Sign in to follow this  
browniebrownie141

how to classify these violation?

Recommended Posts

Hi Guys,

 

How to classify these violation?

 

JDB put 6 negative tradelines on my 3 credit reports, + they did not notify me within 30 days,...

 

Will it be under FDCPA:

805 Communication in connection with debt collection [ 15 USC 1692C]

 

Or will it be under FCRA:

1681s-2(a)(7): Financial institution must provide notice to the consumer when submitting negative info to a credit rating agency, must be within 30 days, must be in it's own writing.

In conjunction with 616 civil libaility for willfully non compliance [ 15 USC 1681n] / or 617 for negligent noncompliance [15 USC 1681o]  

 

I was told earlier, that there is NO Private Right on FCRA !?!

 

Or would it be under something else ?

 

Thank you in advance !

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@browniebrownie141

 

There is no private right of action under 1681s-2(a).   You only have a private right of action under 1681s-2(b).

 

What would your violation be for communication in connection with debt collection?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@BV80:

 

I agree. No violation for communication in connection with debt collection. But that's NOT my point.

 

What I am asking:  

 

"JDB put 6 negative tradelines on my 3 credit reports, + they did not notify me within 30 days,..."

 

Now, as you told me, no private right, under 1681s-2(a).  

 

1681s-2(B) would not fit, would'nt it?

 

Then, which one will it fits under ? Or is it FDCPA? ( which rules?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@browniebrownie141

 

No, 1692s-2(b) is not going to fit. 

 

If the TLs are accurate, you don't have a violation.  There's nothing in the FDCPA that says they have to notify you before placing a TL on your CR.

 

The only way one might have a FDCPA violation is if one sends a timely DV request (within 30 days of the first communication) and the JDB places a TL on a CR before validating.

 

Are the TLs accurate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi @ BV80:

 

If you mean by the $amount, it's accurate.

 

From the discovery response, the JDB due to broken chain & lack custody of document, don't have legal standing, thus they mostly likely do not have the right at the beginning to post trade-lines.

 

Also, they refused DV and I got them from discovery, too. That one listed under FDCPA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another question:

 

Is it a good idea to have the FDCPA trial with Jury or makes more sense to have the Judge doing it?

 

I am from Los Angeles, and the this "choice" pops up ? It's a federal case.

 

thank you thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi @ BV80:

 

If you mean by the $amount, it's accurate.

 

From the discovery response, the JDB due to broken chain & lack custody of document, don't have legal standing, thus they mostly likely do not have the right at the beginning to post trade-lines.

 

Also, they refused DV and I got them from discovery, too. That one listed under FDCPA.

 

You do not understand the burden of proof.  You are demanding the level of proof required for court before they can post a TL.  They do NOT have to meet that burden under the current laws.  The burden of proof for validation and reporting is so LOW you can trip over it.  

 

They don't even have to have custody of the documents currently to post the trade line.  They only need those if they intend to sue you AND the court upholds a demand for production of those documents.  Depending on your jurisdiction and your court's rules as to whether they believe the chain of custody is broken as you allege and the documents are important but again that only has any relevance in a lawsuit THEY FILE not for reporting on your credit report.

 

Also, they refused DV and I got them from discovery, too. That one listed under FDCPA.

 

The FCDPA does not require that they validate.  The law only requires they cease collection activity if they do not.  The problem you have is what constitutes DV and if they can show a letter (NOT that you received it) that may be enough to sink your claim.  The other problem with the "they refused to validate" argument is that the courts are split as to whether reporting a trade line is collection activity.  If yours does not believe it is then your claim is sunk on that merit.  

 

Another question:

 

Is it a good idea to have the FDCPA trial with Jury or makes more sense to have the Judge doing it?

 

Well having a jury trial did not work out too well for the poster on the other board who is telling you this is a slam dunk and you will win.  He lost and now owes 32k in attorney fees to the other side.  Keep in mind that under the Federal law Rule 68 if they offer you a reasonable settlement and you do not accept and you do not WIN you can be ordered to pay the defendant's attorney fees.  

 

If you are not certain whether a jury trial or bench trial is the right thing to do you are in OVER YOUR HEAD and you really need to look into hiring a good consumer attorney to handle this case for you.  I know there are legions on that other board that are telling you everything is good and it is open and shut but what they don't tell you is that most of them have LOST their cases they filed despite their claims of superiority.  Remember these are strangers on the internet and if you come out on the losing end they simply move on to the next poster who will believe what they are saying.

 

If you have not done so you need to consult a lawyer NOW before you end up owing a lot more than the debt.  Federal Court is not a joke or a game as you have been led to believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@browniebrownie141

 

 

From the discovery response, the JDB due to broken chain & lack custody of document, don't have legal standing, thus they mostly likely do not have the right at the beginning to post trade-lines.

 

Also, they refused DV and I got them from discovery, too. That one listed under FDCPA.

 

 

If you don't mind, provide a few details. 

 

When you say discovery, was that discovery from your FDCPA case or a debt collection case?

 

What evidence was provided to prove ownership?

 

Did you send the DV request because you got a collection from them?

 

Was your DV sent within 30 days of their first communication with you?   Or did you send the DV because you found entries on your credit report?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Clydesmom:

 

Thank you so much for your detail reply, it sure helps me to shape up my thinking & decision making.

 

I am trying to ask as many people as I can, trying to get a better understanding, afterall, I am the person who face the lawsuit, face the consequence, and liability. This is why I am doing what I am doing.

 

Once again thank you for your advice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@BV80,

 

I am sorry, I did not specify clear enough...

 

Discovery from debt collection case.

 

No, they never sent me those notice. I responsed upon receiving the summon, which in many people's viewpoint, too late, but, they never send me notice to start with. And I got them from the discovery ( debt collection case). They are 2 separate case, and I am trying to use info from 1st case.  

 

Evidance they provided -- only half page print-out so called bill of sale/ assignment, without reference to my name & account on that document.

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Motion to Compel providing copy of proper bill of sale applicable to the account in this case

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@browniebrownie141

 

No, they never sent me those notice. I responsed upon receiving the summon, which in many people's viewpoint, too late, but, they never send me notice to start with.

 

They weren't required to send you a debt collection letter.   A lawsuit is not considered an initial communication.  It didn't trigger the 30-day validation notice, so they didn't have to respond to your DV. 

 

Your claim that they can't prove ownership and don't have a right to place TLs on your CR may cause them to dismiss your debt collection if they don't feel like fighting.   BUT, it may not.

 

If the debt collection case is still ongoing and hasn't been resolved yet, your FDCPA case may be premature.  If they win the debt collection case, that doesn't help your FDCPA case.

 

Now, if the judge rules that they haven't proven ownership of the account, that would help show that they shouldn't be reporting on your CR.  BUT, what court ruling do you have to support your claim that reporting on a CR when the JDB can't show ownership of the account is an FDCPA violation?

 

they mostly likely do not have the right at the beginning to post trade-lines.

 

Most likely?  In my opinion, it's not a good idea to file a lawsuit based upon "most likely".   That can end up with you paying the court costs of the other party.

 

Again, what precedent do you have to support a claim that failure to prove ownership of an account when placing TLs on a CR is an FDCPA violation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@BV80,

 

Ahhh....you are showing me a different angle of looking at things,....more importantly, from legal aspect....

 

Ok...thank you...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this